We did discuss it in Wahsington and decided to leave it aside while we
worked on the plan for 2013.
I am going to speak honestly here. I wondered if we would ever get a plan,
given how many different ideas and views there were about what should be in
it, and what structure it should take.
My
This strategy is well in hand. We have been building a broader fundraising,
donor and member strategy for reporting to the board in November. Much of
this work can now be brought forward.
Great minds...
On 29 September 2012 19:05, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
That's a good
Sam,
From the context, I think Deryck meant all the money we (the whole of
WIkimedia) raise (through the fundraiser) will nominally pass through the
FDC. I took him to be saying that every pound which WMUK raises
independently reduces by a pound the amount we would be requesting from the
FDC. In
On Sep 30, 2012 11:25 AM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There is a terrible tendency in planning to 'never quite get there' ,
waiting for perfection. We have been a bit prone to that. This plan went
through four re-writes over about the same number of months. It is common
sense
On 28 September 2012 23:29, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Training led and run by volunteers has very little to do with the objections
to the plan, which is about allocation of Chapter resources, focus, and
staff time. I don't see why we're running these two objections together.
I think that would depend on how you define re-writes Tom. They felt like
re-writes and stuff changed.
I Incorporated a lot of people's suggestions and tried to find consensus.
I listened a lot and acted.
You are being unfair.
Jon
On 30 September 2012 12:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail, which
is all you made.
On Sep 30, 2012 1:07 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I think that would depend on how you define re-writes Tom. They felt like
re-writes and stuff changed.
I Incorporated a lot of
On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail, which is
all you made.
You're claiming to measure thought by text diffs. This has a certain
surface plausibility, but insisting on it when you've been
On Sep 30, 2012 3:26 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2012 13:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
A rewrite involves substantial changes, not just changes in detail,
which is
all you made.
You're claiming to measure thought by text diffs.
Please
Where did I mention thought? I neither know nor care how much Jon thought
about it. He didn't fix the fundamental problems and just fiddled with the
details. That is not a rewrite.
On Sep 30, 2012 3:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2012 15:55, Thomas Dalton
Oh FFS. Can everyone please talk about the issues, in this case the plan
itself, rather than people? If you (still) have problems with the
content of the plan, then list those issues and discuss it. We don't
need a dozen emails back and forth arguing whether the existing changes
constitute a
Katie's right. I really have no idea what the main issues are here
about the plan.
Doug
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
Oh FFS. Can everyone please talk about the issues, in this case the plan
itself, rather than people? If you (still) have problems with the
Thanks for this WSC, this is a great start. However, I'm not sure it
describes what's broken with the current system - what factions do we
actually have that are under-represented in the board due to the current
system?
I wonder whether this model actually reflects how people tend to vote in
WMUK
I have explained my views on the plan at length on this mailing list and
the wiki. I have no intention of repeating myself now.
On Sep 30, 2012 4:16 PM, Doug Weller dougwel...@gmail.com wrote:
Katie's right. I really have no idea what the main issues are here
about the plan.
Doug
On Sun, Sep
Just because it hasn't caused any problems yet doesn't mean it isn't broken.
My main objection to approval voting is that it makes tactical voting
almost compulsory. In reality, approval isn't a yes/no thing. It's a
spectrum and in approval voting you are forced to arbitrarily draw a line
Three unconference events in the next fortnight:
I shall be at MuseumCamp in Birmingham tomorrow:
http://museumcamp.eventbrite.co.uk
Do we have anyone attending BarCampNFP:
http://barcampnonprofits.com
in London on Thursday this week? All tickets are sold out. I've only
just heard of
On 30 September 2012 21:11, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Do we have anyone attending LibraryCamp (LibCamp) in Birmingham:
http://www.eventbrite.com/event/3931870330
on Saturday 13 October? I was going, but I'm going to Wikimedia CCE instead.
For some reason I'd missed
Hi all,
I would like to thank Thomas Morton for his well thought explanation
addressed to Roger (Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:51:10 +0100). It covered a number
of points I felt need addressing and Tom put them in a useful and tactful
way - much better than I could have hoped to do.
However, I would like
18 matches
Mail list logo
